I think it's hugely detrimental to the process to have the players present at the meetings. I can understand Craig Adams and maybe a few others but there have been way too many hands in the pot to get anything done. The week where the most progress was made was when it was just Steve Fehr and Daly.

Gaucho wrote:The owners locked the players out, not the other way around, so I don't think it's that ridiculous to expect the owners to pay for the lockout. At the same time, I don't think that stance is very helpful.

Both sides locked each other out. You can't expect a team to open the arena gates if it knows they're only to lose more money. Maybe Fehr should have started negotiating a year ago, but he wasn't ready. And they can't expect owners to pay if there is no money coming in from the games.

This is typical Fehr negotiations. He must be really good at it when you look at how rich baseball players have gotten. In every other league you negotiate with the Upper Class clubs to keep them rich and happy and winning. In Hockey there are only 5 rich clubs. SO you have to work a CBA that keeps the Middle class and lower class clubs happy. Fehr hasn't realized this yet. Thoes clubs in the NHl can wait as long as possible for a deal since they bleed money in the regular season.

Of course as we can see Fehr has not been willing to work a deal for the lower clubs, this would not give the players the biggest return. They hold Bettmans cards more then the NYR MTL or VAN do.

The NHLPA is the one pushing for a rise in revenue sharing to help those lower clubs. The NHL has been countering with lower numbers (still higher than before) because there is opposition from the wealthier clubs who would stand to pay out more.

So it's not all about negotiating with particular groups.

I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?

Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with rev sharing/increased rev sharing (I dont know the exact numbers or anything). My only point is that increased revenue if it works would solve very little, especially in the long run. The players cut needs to come down to 50 and the rich teams can kick more in.

But it seemed to me Fehr was trying to push this idea that the revenue sharing was the real issue. Its not.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?

Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with rev sharing/increased rev sharing (I dont know the exact numbers or anything). My only point is that increased revenue if it works would solve very little, especially in the long run. The players cut needs to come down to 50 and the rich teams can kick more in.

But it seemed to me Fehr was trying to push this idea that the revenue sharing was the real issue. Its not.

Writing this from my phone, so I'm not in position to find the source, but I do believe the NHLPA suggested that the entire increase in revenue sharing would be covered by the additional 7% of HRR the owners would be getting.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?

Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with rev sharing/increased rev sharing (I dont know the exact numbers or anything). My only point is that increased revenue if it works would solve very little, especially in the long run. The players cut needs to come down to 50 and the rich teams can kick more in.

But it seemed to me Fehr was trying to push this idea that the revenue sharing was the real issue. Its not.

Writing this from my phone, so I'm not in position to find the source, but I do believe the NHLPA suggested that the entire increase in revenue sharing would be covered by the additional 7% of HRR the owners would be getting.

I am not sure how the money works out but that extra 7% is alot of money in the owners pockets, that should defienly help each team alot to minimize their losses during the season, i would even project it would make at least half the league to either break even or make a small profit. The other half of the league would lose a little money, not enought that they couldn't cover the loses. and there would still be 5+ teams in fininacial distress. That is where the revenue sharing comes in and helps them minimize their loses. Until they can strenghten thier fan base and rebuild their team. Just concider the cap drops 10 milion, so if every team has an extra 10 million in their pocket that would help out alot. and the worest off teams can spend 10 less million on players it going to help in how much they lose.

Throw revenue sharing on top of that and you lower how much the distressed teams lose and they are no longer looking to relocate since they are bleeding money.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.

So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?

Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with rev sharing/increased rev sharing (I dont know the exact numbers or anything). My only point is that increased revenue if it works would solve very little, especially in the long run. The players cut needs to come down to 50 and the rich teams can kick more in.

But it seemed to me Fehr was trying to push this idea that the revenue sharing was the real issue. Its not.

Writing this from my phone, so I'm not in position to find the source, but I do believe the NHLPA suggested that the entire increase in revenue sharing would be covered by the additional 7% of HRR the owners would be getting.

I am not sure how the money works out but that extra 7% is alot of money in the owners pockets, that should defienly help each team alot to minimize their losses during the season, i would even project it would make at least half the league to either break even or make a small profit. The other half of the league would lose a little money, not enought that they couldn't cover the loses. and there would still be 5+ teams in fininacial distress. That is where the revenue sharing comes in and helps them minimize their loses. Until they can strenghten thier fan base and rebuild their team. Just concider the cap drops 10 milion, so if every team has an extra 10 million in their pocket that would help out alot. and the worest off teams can spend 10 less million on players it going to help in how much they lose.

Throw revenue sharing on top of that and you lower how much the distressed teams lose and they are no longer looking to relocate since they are bleeding money.

Mirtle does a pretty good job of explaining it. Under the old CBA, $150-million was put into the revenue sharing pot and was given to teams that met the criteria. The NHLPA asked them to increase it to as much as $260-million, citing that the 7% increase in their share of HRR (~$230-million based on last season's $3.3-billion in revenue) would sufficiently cover the increase.

The problem is, even with the additional money from HRR there are still only a handful of teams that will earn any significant amount of money. So you're going to have the top-top teams (Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers, etc) putting in large chunks of money because the 5-10 range is going to be full of teams barely reaching the $10-million mark. In other words, the 5-10th ranked earners' contributions are going to be negligible because any meaningful contribution is going to completely wipe out their profits.

Obviously, the biggest problem in the NHL there just are't enough teams turning a profit - and even fewer turning a significant profit. Even with the additional 7% of HRR, the teams that'll benefit from that the most are the biggest money earners who stand to increase earnings by ~$15-million while the teams trying to get by will increase by ~$5-million and the teams bleeding money (ie: Phoenix, NY Islanders) will only increase by ~$2-million.

* The increases in revenue are by my calculations based off the 2010-11 figures provided by Forbes.

Would it be so hard to get rid of the two worst teams financially? (I believe that would be phoenix and the islanders) You could improve the health of the league by getting rid of it's two weakest teams, plus with 28 you could have four even divisions. I don't want to see revenue sharing growing because I have seen what revenue sharing can do to teams like the pirates.

That trip to the conference finals, in other words, doesn't help the Coyotes nearly as much as it potentially could. It almost creates a weird disincentive to be successful.

Screw that, I don't want to see teams like phoenix get incentives to suck. When you receive more in revenue sharing ($13.5-million) than you generate in ticket revenue ($13.3-million), your team deserves to fold. Yeah, that bites, but such is the way in the business of hockey.

NHLPA sez: "we don't know how else to spread terror and be - above all - needlessly difficult right now, any ideas?"NHL sez: "No, let's not talk anymore because you guys suck and we suck and we can't make heads or tails of this either..."

2 week moratorium on talks. Rejected, apparently, by PA

Not sure why the NHL felt the need to announce this point. NHLPA quickly jumped on it and said, "we're ready to talk any time" (except for early in this process, when it made the most sense to avoid a stoppage).

During the regular season, the players would have been paid on the 15th and 30th I believe. Interesting that the moratorium would span two paychecks.

Enough games, it's time for the league to really put the clamps on it. If the players are really worried about every dollar, they'll start talking reasonably.

Headshot77 wrote:Would it be so hard to get rid of the two worst teams financially? (I believe that would be phoenix and the islanders) You could improve the health of the league by getting rid of it's two weakest teams, plus with 28 you could have four even divisions. I don't want to see revenue sharing growing because I have seen what revenue sharing can do to teams like the pirates.

Headshot77 wrote:Would it be so hard to get rid of the two worst teams financially? (I believe that would be phoenix and the islanders) You could improve the health of the league by getting rid of it's two weakest teams, plus with 28 you could have four even divisions. I don't want to see revenue sharing growing because I have seen what revenue sharing can do to teams like the pirates.

Lolwut...

I don't know baseball, but I think he means that the team (Pirates) has no incentive to actually get good because they can profit on gate receipts and the revenue passed down from the top. Coincidentally, the teams that provide them the most revenue are probably the teams that are using the Pirates as a farm club. Basically, allowing the big market teams to just bully their way to the top like they did when the players were in control in the late 90's and 2000's...terrible for the league and fans...

Headshot77 wrote:Would it be so hard to get rid of the two worst teams financially? (I believe that would be phoenix and the islanders) You could improve the health of the league by getting rid of it's two weakest teams, plus with 28 you could have four even divisions. I don't want to see revenue sharing growing because I have seen what revenue sharing can do to teams like the pirates.

Lolwut...

I don't know baseball, but I think he means that the team (Pirates) has no incentive to actually get good because they can profit on gate receipts and the revenue passed down from the top. Coincidentally, the teams that provide them the most revenue are probably the teams that are using the Pirates as a farm club. Basically, allowing the big market teams to just bully their way to the top like they did when the players were in control in the late 90's and 2000's...terrible for the league and fans...

That's what the salary cap is for, and teams already do what you've mentioned (Vancouver and Florida comes to mind first).

Owners: Do not want to get rid of teams because they will not want to admit they have made a mistake during the expansion process. Hence why they will look at relocation first more than anything. Atlanta to Winnipeg is the perfect example here.

Players: Would prefer relocation due to the fact of loosing jobs. That way every players job will be safe.

I doubt the players have any say in what goes on as far as these things but if the players are the union guys they say they are I am pretty sure they would be against it.

Pirates management does not want a salary cap anymore than the Yankees do. Cap floor would force them to spend more money. Yes, this makes the Pirates more competitive in the player market but it is obvious Nutting wants to make as much profit as possible instead of putting a certian % of money made back in to the team.

Owners: Do not want to get rid of teams because they will not want to admit they have made a mistake during the expansion process. Hence why they will look at relocation first more than anything. Atlanta to Winnipeg is the perfect example here.

Players: Would prefer relocation due to the fact of loosing jobs. That way every players job will be safe.

I doubt the players have any say in what goes on as far as these things but if the players are the union guys they say they are I am pretty sure they would be against it.

Contraction was not, is not and will not be on the table now or in the near future. A non-starter.